Russian NGO Pitches Anti-corruption to UN

NGOs must act in concert, consolidate, and engage the business communities they are trying to police and protect.

For all the progress some member nations
have made since the United Nations General Assembly adopted the U.N. Convention
Against Corruption (UNCAC), there is no talk of victory - yet.

In most cases, including in countries that
have ratified the convention, the efforts of state authorities to curb corruption
have yet to yield any tangible results. In other nations, experts think that
corruption is growing.

It’s clearly time for business and civil
society to join together much more seriously, in solidarity, against
corruption. The “World Without Corruption” program (full name: Collaboration
between Civil Society and the Private Sector to Advance the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption: Progress Through Synergy) developed by our
organization promotes participation in advancing the UNCAC. The program is
different from other initiatives because it aims to prevent the possible
involvement of businesses in corrupt schemes at the onset rather than simply
punishing violators of the law.

Our mission is multi-pronged, but it
involves NGOs taking a hard look in the mirror and engaging just the businesses
we hope to police and protect.

First, NGOs have to look inward, since
activities tend to be uncoordinated and many NGOs do not know about each
other’s existence. As a rule, the anti-corruption activities of NGOs are
restricted to assessing existing levels of corruption—rather than real steps to
decreasing it.

The negative and critical bias that has
prevailed in the anti-corruption activity of NGOs makes it impossible for
businesses and others to openly participate in such activities, further
limiting the resource base of civil society institutions and reducing their
potential.

At the same time it is the private sector
organizations that become victims of corruption and they suffer the most
damage. Corruption deforms markets, limits fair competition, hinders business
planning and lowers potential profits. In corrupt markets companies are forced
to adjust—through kickbacks, for instance—in ways that undermine the social
legitimacy of business. Perhaps most
ignored in the efforts so far is the fact that the business community is the
main and natural ally of civil society in their fight against corruption.

In recent years, private financial support
for anti-corruption activity on an international scale has been limited to
guilt gifts: Funding from private
corporations is most often a public effort at redemption after they have been
punished for corrupt schemes. A company in such a situation is interested in
successfully reporting on the funds spent in order to settle out of court. In turn, those civil society organizations
that are recognized by the controlling authorities get funding from these
companies to implement rather timid and ineffective projects that do not have
much practical value.

At present time the anti-corruption
activities of the private sector are primarily channeled in two directions:
financing the rather tame activities of some NGOs and implementing internal
controls procedures. And as it stands now, NGOs are not often held accountable
for what they do with large donations.

To effectively fight corruption, each
business entity should have the opportunity to participate in funding specific
anti-corruption projects that meet the company’s interests and experience. The
company should not only have the possibility to fully control the use of
allocated resources by the respective NGO, but to participate in the project
independently or with the NGO to realize selected stages.

No company should be regarded by NGOs as a
cash cow with no voice.

It is quite clear that to develop such an
approach requires new mechanisms and technology to interact between these
social forces and to correct existing views and opinions on such interactions.

However, the time has come to act. Our
organization has developed necessary mechanisms and technology that have been
tested in the field as projects over the past six years.

One of our success stories comes from a
particularly corrupt sector of the economy – construction. In the northern
Russian city of Syktyvkar,
we signed an agreement with a building company to establish independent expert
oversight of each phase of the construction process. The price of a square
meter of real estate within the building in question decreased from around
$2500 to $1000 (!).

We also established the All-Russia
Competition For Exposing Corruption in Media, which has brought 400 reporters
from all across the country to receive awards in Moscow for investigative journalism that
uncovered cases of corruption.

This competition is critical to our efforts
because media – as the major platform for dialogue between the state and
ordinary people – plays the most important role in fighting corruption.

{***}

Compliance Systems Do Not Decrease
Corruption

It has also become clear that so-called
compliance systems that have become an integral part of the corporate policy of
large companies—code of conduct, internal controls and staff training – do not
in and of themselves decrease corruption, whether they are done in-house or
with expensive consultants.

First of all, anti-corruption compliance
systems are designed to ensure the integrity of middle and low management
levels and to exclude their potential for corrupt activity. However, in highly
corrupt markets it is through these services that most corrupt schemes are
realized. Anti-corruption compliance systems are useless when top management
uses corrupt methods.

Instead of further complicating
anti-corruption compliance systems, simpler and less expensive technology could
be utilized to counter corruption. The basis for such technology should be a
mutually beneficial system that has been carefully thought through with
anti-corruption NGOs. Based on the practical experience of the Interregional
NGO Committee for Fighting Corruption, one can say that no corporation can
reliably and effectively withstand the pressure of corruption alone.

Included in the fight will be
anti-corruption NGOs and all other civil society institutions including
academia and journalist unions, arts and culture associations, schoolteacher
and professorial associations, labor organizations, religious associations,
consumer unions and community-based organizations.

Academia could provide in-depth research
and explanation for the causes and mechanisms of corruption. The journalistic
community has significant influence over public opinion and therefore should
make all efforts possible to spread information not only about specific cases
of corruption and investigations of corrupt individuals but also about any even
moderately successful cases of countering corruption on the part of average
people and private sector organizations.

Religious associations can play an integral
part in ethical opposition to corruption. Condemnation of any corruption should
become a moral norm.

Labor organizations are not fully involved
in the worldwide fight against corruption. Unions have significant resources
and political influence that could seriously impact reductions in corruption.
In particular, they can motivate private sector organizations to refrain from
any forms of corrupt practices by actively supporting such a refusal, consider
the interests of parties involved to implement anti-corruption corporate
procedures and to exert pressure on those companies that use corrupt methods.
This could be done by also including anti-corruption provisions in labor
contracts and by striking and boycotting certain employers.

Consumer unions and community-based
organizations can influence the positions of some companies in specific markets
depending on where those companies stand in their war on corruption. The coordinated
efforts of these organizations could substantially impact the profitability of
such businesses.

At the same time it has been proven by
experience that none of the social forces can be successful when individually
fighting corruption. Only consolidation and, to the extent possible,
coordination of joint efforts on the basis on constant information exchange can
provide the required synergies. Even a small number of organizations and the
effect of their coordinated actions can greatly exceed the focused efforts of the
separate activities of a larger number of anti-corruption projects.

Anatoly Golubev is Chairman of the Board
of the NGO Committee for Fighting Corruption and steering committee member of UN
Global Compact Network Russia.